Vivarium: Philosophy Discussions On Any Subject

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/02/13/sex-neuroscientist-suggests-gender-feminists-and-transgender-activists-are-undermining-science/

If I recall,  Trixie/Lord of the Internet is a Tranny, Manny a Hermie,  S57 was a Sith,  and Magnus Anderson a buttfucker. The old forum had quite a impressive list of perverts.

So,  the article above uses science to call bullshit on it all. What is your positions?

They are not the same in saying a globe is not a circle,  and that neither exclusively grasp round,  but a description does have to be accurate and useful.

The article isn't concerned about gender pronouns,  but rather the politicized assertion of falsehood at the center of the disorder is attempting to skew scientifically observable thoughts,  that this section of the transgender community (I can't claim all)  is trying to rewrite science to fit a political and ideological agenda.

This be like me adopting the Kentucky Creationalist Museum's stance,  and insisting everyone adopts my terminology and formulas regarding mutation and evolution. Yes,  it would,  if that was my heartfelt ideology,  make my toes swirl with delight to see everyone accept my linguistic formulas,  but these formulas would overwrite and undermine none creationalist discussions on evolutionary theory. There may be times when either side wants to talk earnestly,  even kindly of one another's position,  and have respect for one another.....  we are smart enough to grasp when theoretic words belonging to just one school is used contract the other,  ONCE WE ARE EXPOSED TO THE DIFFERENCES,  but it takes a while to learn,  and not everything translates. For example,  Nihilism doesn't exist in my philosophical outlook,  it's is a nonsense term. If it exists,  it exists as a great many things,  but if it is all unified in it's many contradictory definitions,  it must surely be held together by magic and powered by pixie dust.

I can completely dismiss the existence of that term. Freud could dismiss God,  Homer Simpson the existence of North Dakota,  simply because they couldn't point to observable proof it exists. Doesn't outright disprove it,  but in some sense at least, it would be reasonable to be skeptical of each idea.

In gender pronoun swaps,  it isn't a imaginative construct any more than say,  "speed limit", or "traffic sign". Notice cops aren't pulling people over and offering ample sympathy and respect to people explaining that speed limit and traffic light is a subjective concept,  open to interpretation.

Should cops adopt other people's definition of movement?  Should they ponder Zeno's movement paradox?  Or,  should they say shut the **** up,  your speeding,  here is your ticket,  stop being a ****,  and drive at the right speed?

Ultimately it comes down to a demand that everyone plays along with a social script we all use,  that is very important,  most people's lives are governed by gender relations,  from using bathrooms to finding breeding mates, kinds of friends to have that doesn't engender jealously,  etc. The world doesn't turn magically "right" because someone wants to pervert the language to fit their own ideological outlook for social recognition on their own terms. If it was a situation of the language being wrong,  and they corrected it,  it be one thing....  but it was right to begin with,  gender being anatomical,  based on science and not wish fulfillment. Changing it,  messing everyone else up,  skewing discourse and the pursuit of good reason and science for the sake of morale boosting sloppy syllogisms for a minority psychological disorder is not.

But it is less trixie I'm worried about. I'm worried about the **** enthusiasts of this deceitful,  negative outlook demanding that everyone plays along. The article is about the increase difficulty of getting simple,  obvious science through in a era that rejects biology for make believe. Trixie is 100% a guy,  and he grasps why I think so,  but many would refuse such a appelation, and seek to do maximum damage to science,  degrading the language. Why?  Cause it makes them uncomfortable.

It's like trying to eliminate all the words for weight,  mass,  density....  cause your a fatass,  and think the only way you can solve being a fattie is to get the social construct of weight banned. Pounds,  kilograms,  newtons,  velocity,  etc.... Ban it all. We can protest outside of factories making weight scales, and write new medical guidelines. No more weight classes in sports.

This pic has nothing to do with this discussion,  but really wanted to use it:

Even though I'm 60% of the time in Stoic mode,  which is certainly accepting of scientific rigor, a good 30% of it is classical skepticism,  and no Satyr,  not just Greek,  and no,  that doesn't mean Nihilism. It is extremely useful to test ideas,  find faults in logic and belief. I'm obviously not opposed to either logic or faith,  I'm Catholic after all,  but I don't think it generally,  save in ethics,  to rigorously denounce or advocate one form of thinking as universally prioritized over the other.

An example,  the modern historical dramas in the west like to present medieval Christians as preying idiots in the face of danger,  whereas paganism is alive and well in these contexts- most recent example was the rather unhistorical TV show "The Vikings", which last season featured what appeared to be a feminist collective that killed all the men,  asserting an ethos of feminist bullshit....  I about quit watching the show at that point,  has nothing to do with history,  but modern anachronisms projected onto the past to serve modern interests. A season or two earlier,  they had a commander in his tent praying,  wouldn't leave it during battle. Ha ha ha,  those stupid Christians you likely would say.

Obviously I don't think commanders should be priests,  a few cases in history this worked well,  warrior monks turned general,  but they generally focused less on praying and more on battle lines and logistics. There is a earlier substrata of thought,  thinkers like Onasander (a Platonist philosopher, only his military work survives)  thought in a republic all commanders had control over the religious cults of their units,  performed their sacrifices,  etc. They even sacrificed themselves at times.

A lot of the religions at this time had these outlooks. Diplomacy wasn't quite yet secular,  with priests delivering ultimatums to states,  declaring war,  in a capacity ambassadors would today do. If a Roman Emperor was taking a the field,  he likely was sacrificing crap left and right.

Christianity wasn't immune to this idea,  but that was pragmatically resolved in old testament times,  when overly pius groups would get slaughtered on the Sabbath,  when no one took up arms.

In terms of Ethics,  this takes priority in all judgments. However,  you won't have a priority unless you can balance out the necessity of thinking in terms of faith and related emotions,  for identity of groups are based on esprite de corps. I can't look someone in the eye and say axiomatically,  pragmatism counts more than faith as far as survival goes,  so any craft deviled from ethics,  such as generalship, must be explicitly pragmatic. I don't care for bells and whistles,  just the mechanical essence of a function.

You give me someone like WendyDarling or Arc,  their mentality will crack. They identify first themselves to others emotively. These emotions and ways of thinking of people set our expectations for fairness,  goodness,  justice. These are childish emotions literally,  right frontal cortex..... but that is exactly the part of the mind that has to be courted to keep a group together over the long term. In order to have a ethics that prioritize procedures or concerns,  you gotta have a real reference first. Any quality X group is meaningless until it has a reference point. Ethics is never purely algebraic,  abstracted beyond individuals and the real,  what can be qualified and proven somehow. It always stems from real circumstance,  and this isn't a construct,  as construction is a more advanced function of mind beyond the conscious parameters this area of mind runs. It deals with real people interpersonally.

When building a axiomatic rule base, a hierarchy of priority rules,  correct language in necessary for discernment. It is really great this first mode of mind is all social and relatable,  but eventually,  keeping them alive requires knowing what goes,  what stays,  what needs to be prioritized,  in what sequence.

That's a few modes of mind working in tandem. You throw in too many monkey wrenches,  doctrine breaks down,  people flounder,  people die. People die all over the world when well thought out systems to resolve dangers are not in place. You live in a country with over 1,000 years of common laws guiding everything. You don't even notice it,  and when stresses appear,  it isn't always obvious or easy to identify what is going wrong.

In a microcosm,  it is easier. Like,  a small group of friends,  everyone is dying from drugs,  it is obvious. Not to them per say,  they will demand compassion and respect,  just like gay guys crying at AIDS memorials (used to watch that in San Francisco)  or people asking why skutty girls get ****. The reaction is always outrage when you say it truthfully.... but outside the politically correct demand for lying about causes, it generally is easy to figure on the small scale why things go wrong,  even if it is murky in larger society.

I personally don't usually care to lie,  unless the person is obviously suicidal (I'm not fond of suicide in general). I can live with a Nobel Lie,  to avoid some knee jerk reaction to something more terrible,  but prefer the truth as a means to Catharsis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

You may of noticed I focuses on a science vs religion three above,  and yes in a sense,  but also no. Consider this- in modern "secular times", why do we still have planners and kinds of warriors absolutely excused from combat,  why do we still go through just war parameters the Roman priesthoods pioneered,  why do we give our highest medals to self sacrifice? Why haven't military chaplains dissapeared yet? Why do people,  highly secular and athiestic in times of panic,  seemingly pray communally?

It us something we instinctively do as a society,  and every society has it's own twist- but it typically always plays along somewhat similar topography of thinking.

Trixie isn't messed up enough to the point I gotta lie to him constantly. If I did,  he be on suicide watch. I feel he is healthy enough for the truth. Others,  case by case,  but as a general rule,  they need to stop bring bullshitted with,  and denied these games. If they want to dress up,  have surgeries,  fine....  but it doesn't require everyone else playing along. It is absurd to expect that. We don't do this with anyone except children and the delusional mad. If a retarded guy ran around in a Captain America or Batman costume,  we might play along. We don't expect much from them,  not worth upsetting their fantasy. They are tards,  can't expect deep change in them.